Burnley Grammar School

I am having second thoughts about my earlier post. Maybe Tom Pike’s subjects and Charles Du Bois Hodges’ subjects were getting the recognition which they needed.
The French writer Andre Gide was brought up in a puritanical household, where he was taught to struggle against all temptation. He developed an abnormal interest in boys and later saw the connection. He commented, “I would not have been so thirsty if I had not at first been refused to drink.” (Baskin 1968)
Gide is not alone. Goldstein (1973) asked a sample of pedophiles and a sample of control subjects how often they were exposed to nudity and sexual activity during their adolescent years. It was the pedophile subjects whose upbringing was prim and proper.
Among the Trobriand Island society of Papua New Guinea, a little boy and a little girl may be allowed to go into the bushes, set up a makeshift dwelling, and play husband and wife for a few days. This practice does not get the least bit of disapproval from the adults. There, adult sexual interest in children is unknown (Malinowski [1927] 1949): 55-57).
The converse also applies. Among the aborigines of Tierra del Fuego, at the southern tip of Argentina, boys and girls are segregated and watched very carefully (Cooper 1946). Girls are later betrothed with adult males (Deniker & Hyades 1891: 171). A mere coincidence? Probably not.
I recognize the noble motives those who insist on covering children up. I realize that they wish to prevent sexual abuse. But couldn’t the proper solution be the exact opposite course?
It would be interesting to look up alumni from Shears Green Primary School from the 50’s to the 80’s and attended their co-ed nude swims, or from Summerhill School, where nudity was permitted any time any day, and see how many of them have been convicted of any sex crimes. Betcha none of them have.
Baskin, W. 1968. [footnote]. In Gide, A. (Baskin, W., trans.) [1891] 1968. The notebooks of Andre Walter. New York: Philosophical Library: 90.

Cooper, J. M. 1946. The Ona. In Steward, J. H., ed. Handbook of South American Indians, vol. 1: The marginal tribes. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 143, Vol. 1: 1950125. Cited in Janssen 2002.

Deniker, J. & Hyades, P. 1891. Mission Scientifique du Cap Horn, 1882-1883, vol. 7. Paris: Gauthier-Villars et fils. Cited in Janssen 2002.
Goldstein, M. J. 1973. Exposure to erotic stimuli and sexual deviance. Journal of Social Issues 29, 3: 197-219.
Janssen, D. F. 2002. Growing up sexually. Volume I: World Reference Atlas. Interim report. Amsterdam.
http://www.sexarchive.info/GESUND/ARCHIV/GUS/SOUTHAMERICAOLD.HTM#_Contents_of_Section

Malinowski, B. [1927] 1949. Sex and repression in savage society. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

"John Smith" wrote: "I have no knowledge of this person and I was only alerted to the posts on this site by a colleague."

It begs the question, "Me. Smith" why it has disturbed you so much, regarding a person you say you don't know him. If you don't know him you can hardly know what his motives were, as neither can this mysterious "colleague" of yours who was equally upset.

Had I been the person who took those photographs, and saw fit to publish them on a public website, I would have considered how it might be viewed by other people who might see them, including, ot course, the subjects themselves. They might be worried, or indeed angry that that their young selves had been used in such a manner, as might their families, as I doubt they were told they would be published back in 1991. I, too, will say no more about it, but your intervention seems rather strange, given you don't know the person concerned.

I’m not issuing threats at all. I’m merely pointing out how unwise it is to accuse people of voyeurism etc without realising that it’s just possible that the person you’re referring to may take this further to protect his reputation. I’ve had a look at the site and it appears that he was a headteacher.
I’ve looked at some of the earlier posts made on this thread and many of them are libellous - although many of the people referred to are dead. In this case the subject is very much alive.
You are being extremely brave in writing such claims down in print. Others have mentioned Thomas Hamilton in the same posts.
I have no knowledge of this person and I was only alerted to the posts on this site by a colleague.
I’d suggest that yourself, and others, and the owner and caretaker of History World be careful and check carefully on what you’ve written. You may have to prove the veracity of these claims I court.
I shall say no more.

I will apologise to Mr Pike if you feel able to vouch so strongly for his character. If you have read all my submissions to this site you will know I personally felt very humiliated when an adult I barely knew forced me to strip for no better reason than he had the power to do so. The boys in Mr Pike's class may be junior school kids rather than middle school but our ages were the same so I feel confident in assuming some would have much rather been allowed a vest if Mr Pike had been willing to offer the choice, especially as the girls share the class and we're naturally allow shirts. In the photo's all the boys are stripped to the waist, there was clearly no choice. That is the background to my feelings on the matter.

As for taking pictures I stand by my feeling that this was inappropriate because he did it for himself not as a school project or at least that is the impression his site gives. It is probably also inappropriate these days to publish such photo's to the web.

I hope Mr Pike comes onto the site for a serious discussion about past attitudes to PE and not in anger. He could make an important contribution to the discussion which takes place here.

"John Smith" If that is your real name. Perhaps you feel by issuing threats of this nature you are quashing debate. I think one of the questions this photographer would have to answer was WHY he was taking photographs for his own personal archive during working hours. He also taught mathematics. Why not photograph the children there?. Why make the boys pose in nothing but shorts when, by that time, most schools would have been wearing rather more clothing in their lessons and did he get the permission of the parents, not only to take the photographs, but to publish the material on a public website.

As the law stands today, if you were to take, for example, photographs in Trafalgar Square and there was a child in the view, in street clothing, you would have to get the permission of the parent or guardian BEFORE taking the photograph (you will notice in street scenes in newspapers, if any children are photographed, their faces are pixilated, to save such permission being needed). That is not the case with these photographs appearing on a website in 2021.

I have reasons for taking a very dim view of this sort of practice, but that is no concern of yours, but please stop the stupid threats.

Bran I think the late date of this behaviour worries me more than anything. To think it went on into the 2000s is horrific,

You can see the psychology thugh start them off very young with this "minimum kit" lark and they will accept it as "normal" when they get to secondary school. I would have hoped that teenage lads by that time would have been more rebellious, but if they were indoctrinated from day one to suggest that was a standard procedure they are less likely to question it. Our P.E teacher became more "interested" the older you got, but I will say no more about that here. All I can say is that if I had been head teacher, or even a colleague, I would seriously have challenged why he was taking photographs of near naked boys. I would have hated to be one of that class of 1990, even thirty years on, to know that photographs of me from that time were floating about. Thank goodness my Mr X never got addicted to a Polaroid camera!

Some unwise comments being made on here by Alan/Mr Dando or Maltaman etc…
I hope you are prepared to back up (in court) your allegations/suggestions about Tom Pike. I’ve sent him a link to these comments. I would advise him to see a solicitor to look at possible legal action again the people above (I’m confident they can be traced) and also against the owner of this site. Unless you’re Elon Musk defending yourselves against muking such slurs will be very difficult and ruinously expensive.

Alan, my first thought when seeing the photo's and the date was this could easily have been me if our teacher liked photography. Then my second thought after reading about his running of Boys Clubs + the photo's made Thomas Hamilton immediately come to mind. That's probably going too far I know and we know this guy would have some stock excuses for the shorts only rule.

we have always done it that way
we saw no need for tops for the boys
there was never any complaint
the boys could work more "freely"
it was school policy

But these are all very weak arguments. What it does show is just how easy it was for someone potentially dangerous to get into PE teaching in the 80's. Become a scout leader---->run a sports team---->spend a year in teacher training school---->get a job in a junior school specializing in PE---->enjoy lots of opportunity to boss around, discipline and photograph bare chested young boys. It is kind of scary isn't it.

As for my middle school I would be pretty certain the practice went on into the 2000's. A busy road ran along the playing field and I would occasionally find myself driving along it during school time during the summer term and very clearly for all to see the young middle school boys would be doing athletics stripped to the waist. There would be cars parked alongside the school fence, anyone could have just parked up and enjoyed the view. If the same practices I experienced were happening in games then they were probably happening in PE too.

Bran: "Was this teachers policy of keeping his 10/11 year old boys bare chested for PE right into the 1990's still appropriate.

It might be just me but the reasons he gives for entering teaching, his choice to become a PE teacher and his free use of the camera to record his boys (and girls) makes me suspect his motives. What do you think?"

Thanks for publishing this, Bran, and also Spelvin for bringing that disgusting book to our attention.

LIke you, Bran, I have severe reservations about that teacher, and if the police and education authorities took this sort of blatant voyeurism and child abuse seriously, the photographer assuming he is still alive (the book author died a couple of years ago) could expect the sort of early morning police visits several TV celebrities have enjoyed.

I was especially shocked that this sort of "minimal kit" as some people like to describe it, was still allowed in 1990, and it makes you wonder what his "dress code" would have been for older boys.

Many people on the site have sneered at my observations over the past year (and "Mr. Dando" gets it far worse than I have), but anyone who has ever been at the mercy of one of these weirdos (and that is putting it politely) might understand my reluctance to put it down to "those were the times". I have often said that, during the conscription years, which ended in the UK in 1960 there might have been some grounds for hardening boys up, but since 1960 is now over 60 years ago, there was no excuse for it to continue past 1960, when any lad who wished to experience military life could do so, but the vast majority who did not, could be spared the indignities we eventually went through. There was no excuse, and I maintain, those teachers who continued to use this excuse into the 1980s (and beyond, as we now see) was hiding more scabrous personal motives. At least two of the perpetrators have condemned themselves - you have to wonder how many more of them with paedophile tendencies who wasn't so ready with a camera got away with it for so long.

I have felt for a long time, anyone going into teaching, especially into PE , should be investigated by a psychiatrist.

One final thought about the English photographer - he taught other subjects, if his interest in young boys and girls was merely the beauty of their faces, why not photograph them in the subjects he taught them that did not include their removing their clothes? - and where the hell was the headteachers sense in allowing him to snap away when he should have been teaching?. I hope both are now retired.

(The school concerned is still open, btw)

But doesn't mention PE kit in either the Uniform or PE sections of its web-site.

All: Follow-up to my previous posting - I've no idea what I meant by a 'TP personal webpage' - put it down to an old age mis-type and leave it as 'personal webpage'.
(The school concerned is still open, btw)

That site reminded me of a book entitled In Search of Young Beauty, a book by Charles Du Bois Hodges, published in 1964.
The last time I looked at that book, I noticed that the word "enviable" appears a few times.
My guess is that he didn't get enough looking and showing during his own childhood and was trying to make up for lost time.
Here is my review of the book on the Amazon site:
...........................

The volume abounds with nude and seminude photographs of children and adolescents. This is ostensibly because children and adolescents are less inhibited models (8).

On top of this, he offers numerous other reasons. One reason is informality. In one photograph, he tries to convince himself that a girl at least 7 years old would typically play outside wearing only shorts (22). In another photograph, he tries to convince himself that a boy would typically perch on a tree branch wearing only undershorts (16).

Another reason is relevance. In one picture, two boys, disguised as Indians, appear shirtless (32). He also skinny-shoots a boy in a forest setting and titling the picture "Young Fawn" (164). In another picture, an adolescent girl posing as a member of the working class appears shirtless because shirtlessness symbolizes the working class (198).

Of course, nudity and seminudity are appropriate in some settings, so Hodges makes certain not to miss any of those settings. He poses a girl at home in underpants to show how she is seen by her family (76). Since total nudity is related to the river and the ocean, this is where he sets several photographs (152).

Composition is still another reason. In "Study in Rotundity," a chubby girl sits backwards in a curved chair, facing the viewer and showing her upper chest (50). For other photographs, he argues that a plain subject is imperative in order to compensate for a turbulent background (92). He could just as easily simplify the background or ask the subject to wear a solid-colored outfit, but why throw away a perfect excuse?

Hodges is also fond of using nudity as a symbol. A girl inspects a bud on a bush while showing her own budding breasts (178). A boy sitting on the riverbank displays his penis as proof of his gender (162). In the companion piece, titled "Nature's Verge," a girl with baby breasts and a fuzzy vagina steps into the river (160). He eventually runs out of constructs to represent, so he uses nudity as a symbol of nothing in particular (149).

Hodges' real reason might be that he got a buzz out of stripping children and showing them off. In other words, he might have been like an alcoholic on the constant lookout for people to toast.

That's an awful lot of kids shown for posterity in a state of undress, almost certainly without their, or their parents', permission.

@Bran - Thanks for bringing these to our attention - they're an interesting sociological/ historical group ... but ... I think it wrong that they've been posted 'openly' on the www. In a 'Friends Reunited' type group on Pestbook, with closed access, OK but to public view - no. Did he contact the 'youngsters' before putting these up?
Even if all of this is innocuous they shouldn't be on a TP personal webpage.
(One further sentence deleted)

I have an interest in history, especially the history of ordinary people so I sometimes search out old photo's on-line. I just found some of interest to this site. Here are the links:
https://scozia.co.uk/index.php/2019/03/15/oxbridge-lane-primary-pe-1990-91/
https://scozia.co.uk/index.php/2019/03/15/oxbridge-lane-primary-pe-1987-89/

The taker of these photos' tells us he entered teaching because "I was already running, boys clubs, youth clubs, football teams, so I decided that teaching would be the path for me." He entered teaching in 1983 so just before my first middle school PE experiences.

The photos show mostly smiling boys of I guess around 10 stripped down to just shorts posing while the teacher takes pictures of them. From my experience I would say that many of these boys are much less happy about the teacher's minimal kit preference than is shown. My guess is that this teacher gathered a sizable collection of photo's of young boys posing semi-naked during his years as a PE teacher, the reason he gives is that he enjoyed photography. Was this appropriate?
It is a mixed class and the girls of course are modestly attired so the bare chest policy is not safety related, my guess it was a mix of discipline and voyeurism which dictated the boys kit. Was this teachers policy of keeping his 10/11 year old boys bare chested for PE right into the 1990's still appropriate.

It might be just me but the reasons he gives for entering teaching, his choice to become a PE teacher and his free use of the camera to record his boys (and girls) makes me suspect his motives. What do you think?

John,
We were given the choice of shirts or shirtless. To distinguish different teams we wore different colour bands over our chests. Always barefoot though no footwear allowed as school rules

Ross,
Were you given a choice to be shirtless if you wanted to be or were you only shirtless if you played as a skin for shirts vs skins team games?.

Nice and modern in 1959 but come 2002 my school was probably using the exact same style gymnasium with polished wooden floors and wall bars and equipment. We weren't allowed plimsolls or trainers though and was strictly bare feet in the gym. We wore white shorts and white tee or shirtless.

Thanks Claire, You could just tell it was the ramblings of a fantasist, by the repetition of certain words and phrases. I didn't think of Googling her. What a pity on a fairly serious site people like that have to abuse it.

Googling for "Linda Jansen" and "nude" shows that this author posted this same fantasy (with minor text variations) on Quora.com a dozen times or more in the month of December 2019 alone!

LInda: You cite as proof a piece of film made in 1931. NOT 1974. I can believe it happened in the 1930s, but forty years later?..... I doubt it. Sorry.

William: What are we to make of a post which mentions the word "nude", or "naked" or "nudity" THIRTY SIX times?. I counted them, but I can't guarantee I counted them all. There was also a dime store sex novel term about the females "getting a little wet" when the boys undressed, and the girls saw the erections. I wonder how many of our readers really believe this story? - do you?.

According to this woman she and her friends went to the library "naked", she and her friends "drove nude" - you try putting your bare feet on the metal controls of a modern car and operating them, let alone one in circulation 47 years ago. I should have thought that the bible belt in America, still very vocal in the 1970s would have had something to say about that. A nice fantasy for those who like that sort of thing. I don't - I look for fact and honesty, I sometimes find instead exaggeration and, frankly disturbing fantasy passed off as fact.

Alan, the communist thing was just a little joke, the priest was complaining about boys being unfit to fight communists in that movie scene I posted.

As for USA, see these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_League_nude_posture_photos
https://www.vocativ.com/culture/fun/fairly-recently-ymca-actually-required-swimmers-nude/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGt_HUSSyQQ

Alan, Look closely and you will see that you've got the wrong William.
I don't know if Linda is a fantasist. There is serious historical material to support much of what she says about boys' nudity in US schools and the change in attitude towards non-sexual nudity. An article in Life magazine from 1941 on Democracy in US schools has a photograph of boys showering naked. Apparently no-one complained.
As for insults, you need only look back at your comments over the past year to see what I mean. They stifle discussion which is a shame because you've made some thoughtful points.

It is okay to doubt me Alan but this is one example of a school sports days I used to attend. You must remember there were different standards then to what we have now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNGzF-4y88k

William, Are you really so gullable you believe that nonsense in Linda's post?. She was obsessed with the word "nude" she used it three times in one two line paragraph alone. "Nude" and "naked", in the 1970s in America?. Unless she was attending one of those hippy commune schools, I frankly don't believe a word of it.

It is not an "insult" to suggest there are several posters here who have the strangest and most unsavoury fetishes. I thought I was quite gentle with poor Linda and her fantasies. You yourself in recent days have presented us with two videos showing naked lads. It seems a somewhat odd preoccupation for an adult male.

While talking about "insults", I didn't like your suggestion that I was a communist. God alone knows what strange fantasy of yours inspired that weird thought.

It is a shame that a site such as this should eb inspiring odd thoughts and wishful thinking. It should be based on fact, and I would put it you that Linda's post was pure fabrication.

Linda, You should know that Alan insults everyone who contributes anything that is different from his own opinion, usually by insinuating sexual perversion of one sort or another.

Linda. Here in Britain we have a long running game show on radio called "Just A Minute". Four contestants are given a subject and they have to talk for sixty seconds without hesitation, deviation (from the subject on the card) or repetition.

If we were playing the game on this thread I would have you for repetition of the word "nude". That there is deviation there is no doubt.

I honestly think a psychiatrist would have a field day if he/she were to read some of the messages on this thread. It hardly matters whether the stories are true or not, it is what the participants would have LIKED to have happened.

I went to high school in New York state, class of 1974.

Not only did we watch, we swam naked with them and did sit ups, push ups, jogging etc with them. Not all schools segregated the males and females.

We also attended other events in which the boys were nude and for us girls it was optional for us to go nude. Several girls chose to go nude and it was perfectly fine.

It wasn't a requirement for us girls. It was optional. All but two girls stripped naked when they were told they had that option. Not only did we swim naked, but we did sit ups, push ups, and jogging naked. This was during the 70s and not only did the girls strip naked so did the guys. I think it was mandatory for the guys to swim naked. But it was a lot of fun watching the guys get stiff as we stripped!

We also had other nude events at school such as fundraisers, track meets, and nude protests. As I mentioned in other posts it wasn't uncommon to see guys and girls walk to their cars nude after gym class or after track meets.

Nude protests to end the Vietnam war were common also. Both guys and girls participated.

During the 60s and 70s nudity was embraced by just about everyone. In the 1980s all of that changed when new laws to prohibit nudity were enacted.

My older sister wore a tie dye skirt with nothing underneath to Woodstock. I protested nude with other men to end the war in Vietnam.

Other times we were naked in school included our class walking to the library nude.

My friends and I rode bicycles nude when I was a little girl.

It wasn't uncommon to see girls and guys walk to their cars nude and drive off nude after gym class, swimming events. and track meets.

We often rode the bus nude to swimming events and meets.

There was a fundraising event at school in which a booth was set up and two other girls and I decided to be nude for the fundraiser. We only wore beaded necklaces and a headband.

The guys did a fundraiser nude also.

A friend of mine from another school told me that she was in a nude beauty pageant at her school.

I drove my car nude to several events.

My parents went nude also, and told me and my sister that they also had nude events when they were in high school. My dad graduated in 1949, and my mom graduated in 1953 by the way. So even back then nudity was common and accepted.

Nudity seemed to be popular until the early 1980s and then anti nudity laws and ordinance bans prohibited freedom of expression involving nudity and that's why you don't see people involved in nude activities today.

If I did half the things I was able to do and did when I was a teenager now, I would be arrested and sent to jail for a few months.

I noticed a lot of other people my age and younger who are saying that never happened in high school. I'm not sure where some of you attended high school, but swimming nude was mandatory in most schools in the U.S. even after I graduated.

In many schools nude PE and nude swimming was mandatory for boys. In some schools like the high school I attended beginning in 1970, boys had to be nude for PE and swimming. For girls it was optional. We were given the option to go nude for PE, swimming and other sports. Again this was common and acceptable during that time.

The girls were called into our gym teachers office and he told us to sit down. Once seated he said “Ladies, the boys have to be nude for PE.” We all began to giggle. Then he said “ But you ladies have the option to participate nude if you desire to.” We snickered even more. Then he asked us if any of us had a problem with it. No one said anything. Then he motioned for us to get up and we walked to the gym. On one side of the gym was the boys and we were on the other side. The gym teacher told the boys to strip. They stripped first. Then he looked at us and said “if you ladies would like to strip, please do so now.” All but two girls got naked. I watched the boys get aroused very quickly. The other girls saw it too and we all began giggling. A female assistant teacher who was older said “Girls, no giggling. An erection is a natural function of the male body. It just means they have healthy bodies.”

Did it it turn me on when I did PE with the guys? Yes! But we were watched closely. We had to follow the rules even though some of us were a little wet. Eventually we got used to it, and it wasn’t as stimulating as it was at first.

William - though it is none of your business, NO, I am NOT a communist - far from it. What on earth prompted that remark?

Politics aside, you seem to enjoy YTs of naked boys. I'd worry more about that than who I vote for, if I were you.

Alan, are you a communist?

https://youtu.be/900wVDrUHIo?t=2132